Romney's Religion

Today, Mitt Romney will defend his faith to the nation, suggesting primarily to conservative Christians that it's okay to be a Mormon and still be the president of our country. Some are comparing it to Kennedy's speech when he defended his Catholic faith for the same reason. And I don't know that Romney is far wrong. There appears to be many Christians who simply refuse to vote for a Mormon for president.

Frankly, I'm baffled. (Any of my regular readers will add, "And what else is new?") What does one have to do with the other? What does one's particular beliefs regarding the sacred have to do with the secular? Where do we (by "we" I mean "conservative Christians") find any sort of basis for "only a Christian in the White House"? I don't find it in the Bible. (Funny ... I don't even find "the White House" or even "America" in the Bible.) I don't find it in the Constitution. I don't find it in logical thinking. What does one have to do with the other?

The truth is that Mormonism is not classical Christianity. There is much debate on that count, I know, but really, there isn't much to talk about. At its core, classical Christianity is monotheistic. Everyone knows the link between Judaism and Christianity (as evidenced by the well-known term, "Judeo-Christian"). Both share a monotheistic religious perspective. Both share the same "God". Mormonism is unabashedly polytheistic. Right or wrong, that disqualifies it from being part of classical Christianity. If you define a Christian as a Christ follower, there still remains the question of "Which Christ?" Christianity has maintained from its inception that Jesus was "in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6). The doctrine of the Trinity, as much as detractors might disagree, has been there since the beginning. Mormonism argues that it is a deviation from the original intent. Again, right or wrong, that disqualifies it from being part of classical Christianity. Further, it means that while they may be "Christ followers", it is a different Christ that they are following. In Christianity, Jesus was God Incarnate (or "God with us"). In Mormonism he (note the lower case "h" there) was the son of God, the spirit brother of Satan. That is a different Jesus. Mormonism can claim to be correct -- that is their prerogative -- but it doesn't make sense to claim to be Christian without first agreeing that all of classical Christianity and its adherents are not Christian. The two are incompatible. And, of course, when you diverge on basic claims like "Is there one God or more than one?" and "Who was Jesus?", it follows that you will diverge on all sorts of other things. Mormonism and Christianity are not compatible.

Still, I can't imagine what any of this has to do with running a country. If you have a theocracy, you would need a leader who is a theocrat, a leader who agrees with that particular form of theism. An Islamic nation would need an Islamic leader. This is not such a nation. It is a democracy (generally speaking -- more correctly a republic) without the fundamental definition of "Christian". If you have a church, it would need to have a pastor that agrees with the church perspectives. That seems logical. If you have a religious organization, it would be important to have a leader who agrees with the religion of that organization. America, however, is a secular nation. To be the leader of this country does not require that you have any specific religious views.

What is important for the leader of the United States? Since it is a republic -- a representative government -- it would need to have a leader that shares the same values as the majority of the country. Voters, then, would want to elect a person who shares their values, not necessarily their religion. Do you value life? You would want a president who values life. Do you want the freedom to bear arms? You would want a president who would defend that freedom. Do you value morality? You would want a president whose moral values are similar to yours. And, Christians, let me say that in almost every way the moral values of Mormonism are equal to -- sometimes higher than -- the standard Christian values. What does it matter if that leader worships a different Christ or has a different God if that leader shares your values in the matters of state?

Sometimes I think that Christians get too caught up in peripheral matters. Nowhere do I read, "If you love Me, you will vote for a Christian." Nowhere do I find the command, "Go ye into your world and make your nation a Christian nation." My Bible seems to be completely lacking in commands for political views. We are commanded to share the Gospel and we are commanded to be salt and light in our world, but I cannot find anywhere that says that we should demand that the President be of the same religious persuasion that we are. Look, let's be honest here. If that is your demand, I suspect that it is an ultimately impossible demand. I doubt that you will find anyone who is 100% in line with your own views on everything theological. So why are we making it such an issue that Romney is a Mormon while many are saying, "We'll vote for Giuliani" (whose life and values run counter to our own)? Is it possible that we are being a bit misguided here?

Mohler with a Compass

Albert Mohler wrote a great piece on the new movie, The Golden Compass, coming out this week. He does so having both seen the movie and read all three of books in the trilogy, so it isn't a vaguely informed assessment. Nor does he call for some boycott.

The article lays out clearly the explicit intent of the author, Philip Pullman, whose goal is to combat Christianity. He explains the basic content of the movie and the theme of the trilogy, but more importantly gives helpful suggestions on how Christians should respond.

This is a great opportunity to show that Christians are not afraid of the battle of ideas.

When Christians rise in protest and seek to banish a book or movie or idea from their society, this is exactly the problem. It says to the world, "We are not able to discuss ideas or explain to you why the concept we are protesting is wrong. We just want it gone." I suspect that the reason for this perception is, too often, that it is correct. Too many Christians have failed to be about the business of renewing their minds as commanded and are simply feeling their way.

There is a perception in the world that faith is "feeling", a belief bereft of reason. There is a perception that religious people in general and Christians in particular are not as rational as non-believers. They seem to think that truly intelligent folks think things through, but religious folks just aren't up to it. Never mind that some of the brightest philosophers in history were religious folks. Forget about the fact that it was primarily Christians who really introduced the concepts of modern science to the world, believing as they did that God was rational, so the world ought to be as well. In other words, to conclude that religious people can't be very good thinkers is just not very good thinking. On the other hand, many Christians today have bought the notion that faith is separate from reason, that thinking has no real part in religion, and have gone a great distance to demonstrate that the faulty thinking that "Christians can't think" isn't so faulty after all.

Dr. Mohler suggests that trilogy of books and the movie are dangerous because they are so attractive. They appear harmless, are engaging stories, and will subvert thinking before the observer is aware of the danger. He goes on to suggest that the way to handle this real danger is to talk about it. Be prepared. Know the truth. Discuss it with your kids. Talk about it with your friends. Know why you believe what you believe and be ready to explain it to others. Use this explicit assault on Christianity as a springboard for discussion rather than running from it screaming, "Boycott!!"

Perhaps it isn't merely Dr. Mohler's suggestion that we should follow, because to me it sounds a lot like the command of God:

Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).

Since that's the command, I'm thinking that perhaps that's the better approach ...

Atheists and Amputees

Google "amputee healed" on the web and you will find a plethora (I like that word) of entries on the topic of the "proof" that God doesn't exist because "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" Believe it or not, there is even a website titled with that premise. (I don't have to link to it. You can find it if you feel you need to.) I'm really confused at the argument. It goes something like this:

1. The Bible claims that God answers prayers.
2. Christians claim that God has miraculously answered prayer for all manner of afflictions, as He has promised.
3. There is one set of individuals for which this claim is never made -- amputees.
4. This suggests, as atheists believe, that there is no God, since Christians can't explain it.

Why is it confusing to me? Well, it seems like the question isn't asked either fairly or clearly. Here, let's run some "witnesses" by our "panel of atheists" (Note: Both my witnesses and my panel are fictional -- for purposes of illustration only. Any correlation to actual people would be because we recognize these things as entirely possible.) and see how it shakes out.

John worked in a cabinet-making shop. He was rushing to get some work done and chose to bypass some of the safety features of the equipment to speed things up. Distracted for a moment, John suddenly lost a hand to the spinning saw blade. Paramedics are called. John (and his hand) are rushed to the hospital. John's family prayed furiously for him as the doctors operated to restore the lost limb. In the end, John regained the full use of his lost hand because of the quick response of the paramedics and the doctors skills. John and the family, however, thanked God for the restored limb.

"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "you can't use doctors. Calls for speculation that it was 'God' -- only an opinion. That doesn't count."

Okay, meet Allysa. One day she was driving down the freeway when someone cut her off. Veering to avoid a collision, she went off the road. The car rolled and, unfortunately, her hand was outside the vehicle and was crushed. The doctors could do nothing to save the hand. Her church raised her in prayer. Allysa's stump healed more rapidly than the doctors expected and soon she was back home. She was able to care for herself, goes on to live a happy life, and thanks God for the close encounter with death that was averted and for the rapid healing of her limb.

"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "but the object of 'healing' here is not a stump. She had to end up with a new hand to be considered 'healed'. That doesn't count."

How about Mark? Mark was serving his country overseas when a roadside bomb detonated and severed his left leg. No amount of doctoring could save the leg. While Mark was flown back to the US, his church family held him up in prayer. His stump healed quicker than usual and he was soon fitted with an excellent prosthetic. Soon he returned to duty to finish out his enlistment. So well did he adapt to the prosthetic that he became a runner, got sponsors to support his racing, and everywhere he went he touted his belief that God made it all possible for him.

"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "no way. He wasn't healed. A prosthetic isn't 'healing'. He has to have a new limb grow back. You can't consider it healing just because he thinks it is and becomes fully functional. That doesn't count."

Janice was a young girl who grew up in a Christian home. Inundated with Christianity, she rebelled as a teenager and went out on her own as soon as she could. At 19 she was on the back of her boyfriend's motorcycle when he lost control and crashed. The boyfriend died from his injuries, but Janice survived. Unfortunately the doctors couldn't save her leg. As she lay in the hospital, her family praying for her unceasingly, Janice realized that she had been running from God and relying solely on herself. She saw her need for a Savior, repented of her sin, and became a follower of Christ. Today she uses the prosthetic that helps her walk as a daily reminder that she needs to constantly lean on Jesus, not to trust in herself.

"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "but that's not even close. How is that a 'healing'?" Well, it would seem that in Christianity the biggest concern is not the body, but the soul. Janice received the biggest healing of all, a healed soul. "Sorry, that doesn't count at all. Rejected out of hand. That doesn't count."

Alright, one more. Henry and his wife were missionaries to a remote tribe in South America. They weren't making much headway there. One day a young boy was bitten by a venomous snake. Henry was a doctor and his wife a nurse. While the witch doctor chanted, Henry and his wife went to work, all the time praying for the boy and the village. They saved the boy from the venom, but the bite made the hand useless. Now, a person with only one hand in this part of the world was a danger to himself and to others. Traditionally, the tribe would kill such a person for self-defense and as an act of mercy. The night before the tribal leaders were planning to come and do the deed, Henry and his wife were praying for the child with all their might. In the morning, as the leaders arrived to kill the child, they are shocked to find that the boy had grown a new, healthy hand. So amazed were they that the witch doctor was the first to surrender his life to Christ, followed closely by most of the villagers.

"Eeeeeh!" the rejection buzzer sounds. "Sorry," the panel responds, "but that's not here. That's a nice story, and if it occurred here we'd have to agree, but it's just a story. Without the actual evidence of the event in front of us, we have to rule it inadmissible. That doesn't count."

You see, this is primarily how it goes. The anti-theist who uses this argument starts with the presumption of no God. Then he/she demands that God act in a way that fits his/her own criteria. The only actual, allowable method whereby God can answer the prayer for healing is if He actually regrows the limb ... essentially in the presence of the skeptic. When God fails to meet the demand, God fails to exist. Poof! God vanishes in a puff of logic. "If the Most High God, the Sovereign of the Universe, is unwilling to accede to our demands, He must not be." That's the premise. They pass this off as rational, as if the Sovereign of the Universe logically should do what they say He should do. I don't get it.

My grandfather was an atheist. Once I asked him, "What would it take to convince you otherwise?" He told me, "Simple ... just have God come down here in my presence and perform a miracle or two." Yeah, He tried that. They called Him Jesus, but He was also called Immanuel -- "God with us". He healed the sick, made the blind see, even raised the dead. One time He restored the ear of someone who had it amputated. Do you know what they did with Him? Well, when all the witnesses to the raising of the last dead guy, Lazarus, reported it, they not only planned to kill Him, but to kill the resurrected guy as well. Eliminate the evidence. Otherwise there will be ... trouble.

In the story of Lazarus (different Lazarus) and the Rich Man (Luke 16), Jesus says, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). I'm sure we can tack onto that "neither will they be convinced if an amputee has a limb restored ... by any means."

An Alliance with Egypt

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses and trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the LORD! (Isa. 31:1).

"Um ... okay, Stan," you might say, "you got me. What does that have to do with anything?" I'm not entirely sure, but it raises a serious question in my mind extremely relevant to our times. I'm hoping that someone will help me out with this.

The reference is to Israel in Hezekiah's day. The superpower, Assyria, was on its way to take over their world. Judah had no military might to stand against Sennacherib's armies. What were they to do? Well, their response was logical and wise. Obtain an alliance with another superpower, and that army could help defend them against Assyria. Fortunately, Judah had a superpower just south of them -- Egypt. It made perfect sense to go to Egypt for help. Egypt had horses and chariots and the capacity to defend Judah against all comers. It was logical and wise ... but it was wrong. God said that Egypt's help was "vain and empty" (Isa. 30:7). God's people had demanded of those who speak for God, "You must not prophesy to us what is right" (Isa. 30:10) and "Let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel" (Isa. 30:11). Here's how God starts out Isa. 30, a synopsis of the problem:

"Woe to the rebellious children," declares the LORD, "Who execute a plan, but not Mine, and make an alliance, but not of My Spirit, in order to add sin to sin" (Isa. 30:1)

"Um ... okay, Stan," you might repeat, "where are you going with this?" We can all see the problem in Israel at the time. They followed logical, wise thinking carefully and coolly and came to the wrong conclusion. "Don't talk to me about the power of God," they said, "show me something that works." They were in a fight for their lives and rather than simply ask God about it, they did what looked right.

Here's where I'm going with it. We are facing an election in less than a year now. The offerings of good candidates are slim. There is a large consensus among biblical Christians that Hillary would be a serious problem. On the other hand, Giuliani, who has perhaps the potential to beat Hillary, has his own problems in the form of personal character and his views on issues like abortion -- no small issues. Some (like myself) have suggested "We cannot vote for either of them." Others raise this oft-repeated statement: "A vote for anyone who cannot beat Hillary is a vote for Hillary." Okay, something like it.

Do you see the parallel? Hillary is a dangerous candidate to people with biblical Christian values. She is dangerous because of her views and she is dangerous because of her popularity. She is a political superpower that threatens our well-being. So what do we do? Well, we do the rational thing. We find someone that can defeat her and ally ourselves with him. That makes sense. We need to fight evil, and keeping her out of the presidency does that, even if the person who takes that role in her place isn't as good as we'd like. It seems to me that too many of God's people in America are willing to align themselves with an entity known to be opposed to Christian views to defend themselves against a worse entity known to be opposed to Christian views. As in the case of Israel's alliance with Egypt, this makes perfect sense. It is logical and reasonable and wise ... but is it equally wrong? Are we making the same mistake Israel made? Are we going to tell people who speak for God, "Don't tell us what is right" like the reaction to Dobson when he suggested perhaps we ought not vote for Giuliani? Are we going to suggest that this is a matter best left to voters and "Let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel"? Are we going to execute a plan that is not God's plan and make an alliance that is not of God's Spirit?

God offers an alternate path for Israel in the passage I was reading.

For thus the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel, has said, "In repentance and rest you will be saved. In quietness and trust is your strength." (Isa. 30:15).

Remember ...

The LORD longs to be gracious to you, and therefore He waits on high to have compassion on you. For the LORD is a God of justice; how blessed are all those who long for Him (Isa. 30:18).

Whether I'm right or not, these are things to keep in mind. Having offered them to you now, I'm wondering if I'm far afield in my thinking or is the parallel valid? Are we making alliances with Egypt to defeat Assyria, so to speak, when we aim to vote for "anyone who can beat Hillary"? Are we relying on the world's horses and chariots as it were rather than on God's divine plan and power? Are we making the same mistake they did? Because the results would have been catastrophic.

Note: For the actual results, read 2 Chronicles 32:1-22. Turns out depending on God rather than human measures seems to produce a better outcome.

On Heaven

A few weeks ago I wrote a post on Hell. It was actually in response to conversations going on elsewhere, but what I'm finding more and more is that the historical, biblical doctrine of Hell is being questioned in places one might not expect. Despite the fact that Christianity in nearly every form you might find it has always affirmed the eternal torment of the unsaved in judgment, annihilationism is the new "hell".

The problem, it seems, is that too many people can't fathom the justice of Hell. An eternity of torment is too much to suffer for a finite lifetime of sin. How could a just, loving God do that to human beings? The reasons for this objection are multifaceted. Let's look at the difficulties.

The first problem is with the nature of sin. We've managed to diminish the concept of "sin" to "misdeeds" or even "mistakes". Sin just isn't that bad. How bad can it be? I suspect that most Christians aren't really aware of how really bad sin is. According to Paul, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). You see, the real problem of sin isn't "doing bad things". The real problem of sin is God's eternal glory. The problem, then, isn't one of finite transgressions, but an infinite transgression.

This points to the second problem. The objections to the traditional, historical doctrine of Hell is that it seems cruel to humans. The underlying assumption here is that humans are the important factor. God owes us "nice" in some sense. He must love us because, well, we're just so important. And if I suggest otherwise, there is no shortage of people who would be outraged that I would suggest that humans are not the primary point. Unfortunately for us, God's primary concern is not His subordinate creation, but His own glory. Fortunately for us, His glory is magnified in showing mercy to sinful creatures that deserve none.

The overarching problem is our measurement malfunction. We can't figure out how bad sin is. It's not so bad to us. Does it really matter if God's Sovereignty and Authority and Glory are transgressed? And we can't really figure out our own value. I mean, God has placed a value on us based on his own Image, so we've decided to steal it and make it our own. We really are all that, aren't we?

The bottom line is right there in our inability to properly evaluate. Once in church I heard the Atonement referred to as a "fire escape". The point, we often tend to think, is that we want to avoid Hell. Hell is bad because we would be uncomfortable there. Heaven, on the other hand, will be good because we will be happy and there will be no sadness and there will be streets of gold and ...wrong, wrong, wrong.

If we are to ever properly evaluate life, we need to shift the focus from us to God. Heaven is not heaven because it will be pleasant; heaven is heaven because God is there. Hell is not Hell because it is unpleasant; Hell is torment because God is not there. Sin is not simply doing bad things; sin is violating God's glory. It's all about Him!

Here's the deal. Hell won't serve as a motivation to salvation. Paul tells us "Behold then the kindness and the severity of God" (Rom. 11:22). Both are significant. Both are valuable. Both tell us things we need to know. But Paul also says, "God's kindness leads us to repentance" (Rom. 2:4). When we properly see the depths of sin and the just cost of sin, we can get a better grasp of the kindness of God. Repentance isn't feeling bad about getting caught or fearing loss; repentance occurs when we love God so much that it pains us to violate His glory. Grace isn't something that affirms our worth; it is an undeserved gift of love from a God who owes us nothing but punishment. Life isn't about what I deserve or can get or even the punishment I can avoid; it's about serving God for all He is worth.

I suspect that most of us ("us" is a term that includes "me") have a lot of work to do on altering our mindsets. As you go to church today, contemplate the glory of God.

Consider the Source

In discussions with Christians regarding matters of faith and practice, many like to trot out the "trump card" -- "Well, I get my view from the Bible." The idea is that they get their view from Scripture while those that disagree with them do not. If Christians agree that the Bible is the sole source of instruction in matters of faith and practice (sola scriptura), then it's a given. End of discussion.

Sometimes this may be the case. The other side may be arguing from culture or experience or "what I heard someone else say" or emotion. "That's not how we do it" or "It doesn't feel right" or "I've seen it work differently in my experience" are too often considered valid arguments for a view that contradicts Scripture. In these cases, it is right to pull out the sola scriptura concept. As Paul writes, "Let God be true though every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). With deceitful hearts and lives lived too close to the world, it is easy to get misdirected with sources other than the truth of the Word of God.

On the other hand, too often this trump card is wrongly played. Consider a discussion among Christians about the topic of Election, for instance. Someone might refer to the views of Luther or Calvin or Augustine in the discussion. Our fine biblicist pulls it out here. "Well, I get my view from the Bible." That's all well and good, but often when the discussion includes other sources, they are sources commenting on the Bible. In other words, although the comment comes from someone else, it is still a biblical source. Too many times we'll lay out this trump card as if it is impossible for two well-intentioned, rational Christians to disagree on the interpretation of a biblical concept. Too often, in fact, this trump card is wrong.

Take, for instance, the discussion over justification by faith. Is it biblical, or is it man-made? There are no small numbers of writings on the topic from all sorts of sources. Most of them are quotes from and interpretations of Scripture. And it isn't one Scripture; it is many. The general pile of Scriptures on the topic prove that we are justified by faith apart from works. Still, you will find someone who will pull out James 2:24 as proof. "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Their point: "Well, I get my view from the Bible." Their conclusion: If you believe that we are justified by faith apart from works, you do so without Scripture.

The problem in this use of sola scriptura is that it terminates discussion. There is no place to go. I can pull up all sorts of references (without using other people's writings) to demonstrate that justification is by faith apart from works, but it doesn't matter because their view is "from the Bible". Therefore, mine is not. Nor is the view of all those other people throughout Church history who have all concluded that the Bible teaches justification by faith apart from works.

There are big problems that accompany this kind of termination of discussion. One of the most obvious is that sometimes the argument is "from Scripture" but clearly faulty. There are websites (that I don't feel the need to reference) that use the Bible to try to prove that the Bible (and, consequently, Christianity) is false. Many people have used the Bible as their source of heretical views. Satan himself used the Bible when he tempted Jesus in the desert. Using the Bible as the source of an argument doesn't necessarily prove the argument. (I am using "argument" here in the sense of "presenting a point of view", not "knock down drag out".) Simply dismissing the discussion because "my view comes from Scripture" doesn't help in these cases. Scripture must be discussed. In other cases, the views of Scripture being referenced may need to be evaluated. But simply terminating the dialog based on one's superior source usually doesn't fix anything.

According to the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Bible is the sole source in matters of faith and practice. I happen to agree with that doctrine. Most Christians do. I fear, however, that too often discussions on topics of disagreement can get short-circuited and too easily terminated by incorrectly suggesting that they alone can be right on the topic and disagreement with their view is a clear indication that those who disagree don't follow Scripture. It's just too often not the case. When you think of pulling out that trump card, think first. It could be that those who are disagreeing with you are also using Scripture as their primary source, in which case you should keep that card to yourself.

Mass Spanking

Massachusetts is debating on whether or not to ban spanking entirely. According to the article, if you lay a forceful hand on a child under the age of 18 except to wrest them from danger, you could be charged with child abuse and/or neglect. Nor is Massachusetts the first. Sweden banned spanking back in 1979. California entertained the idea this year, although they were going to limit it to under 4 years old.

The argument behind the legislations always seems to be the same. "My parents used to beat me mercilessly, and it didn't make me a better person." The notion behind banning corporal punishment seems always to be predicated on the idea that it is not possible to physically discipline a child without abusing them. All corporal punishment, it appears, is child abuse. And we certainly aren't in favor of child abuse.

It is a complex question. There is no doubt that too many parents abuse their children. Recently here in the Phoenix area a step-mother tortured her 12-year-old step-daughter to death. Beaten and burned while her 9-year-old sister watched and even endured much of the same, she was dead for days before anyone found out. I don't think there is a rational person on the planet that would argue that this was a good idea, proper parenting, "the parents' right" or any such thing. No one favors abusing children even in the name of "proper parenting".

On the other hand, some of us are faced with the biblical perspective. The other day on the Christian radio station I sometimes hear on the way home from work they were debating this topic. Christians called in to say, "You have to discipline in love" and "Spare the rod, spoil the child." One lady called in all upset. We had been deceived. The Bible doesn't teach spanking. Corporal punishment is always evil. "Christians who believe in corporal punishment of children get their view not from the Bible but from books written in the last 200 years," she informed us.

Truth be told, the Bible does not say, "Spare the rod, spoil the child." It is actually a quote from a poet named Samuel Butler who was not actually advocating it, but poking fun. In his piece, Hudibras he said in jest that if "love is a boy," then we ought to "spare the rod, and spoil the child." So was the caller right? Well, most Christians who use the phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child" reference Prov. 13:24 -- "He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently." I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot like the intention of the phrase, "spare the rod, spoil the child", even if it's not a word-for-word quote.

I don't think it can be safely argued that the only way to view corporal punishment as right is to get it outside of Scripture. The problem, I suspect, comes from a fundamental view of humans that it most prevalent today. The reason that Solomon argues for the use of the rod isn't a mean-spiritedness or a lack of compassion. Instead, it comes from a basic belief that human beings are fallen. So we read, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of discipline will remove it far from him" (Prov. 22:15). If children are essentially innocent, without sin, then all they really need is guidance. If, on the other hand, they are born sinners, they will need, at times, more desperate measures. This isn't an act of unkindness or cruelty; it is an act of love.

"That view," the caller assured us, "is not found in the Bible." Actually, I conclude that it is an act of love because of the Bible. In Hebrews 12 it is hard to avoid. In fact, it is hard to read.

Those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives (Heb. 12:26).

Now, I'm an advocate of spanking, but that is hard for me to read. It doesn't suggest a pat on a padded behind. The passage uses the word "scourges." So frightening is the biblical concept of corporal punishment that Solomon had to reassure parents, "Do not hold back discipline from the child; although you strike him with the rod, he will not die" (Prov. 23:13). Regardless of the extent of this discipline, it is unavoidable, however, to conclude that corporal punishment of children is expected in Scripture, and that it must be done on the basis of love for the sake of the child.

What are we to make, then, of all the data that suggests that spanking is bad for kids? I would have to question the data myself. I am premising the biblical concept of spanking on what I just stated: It must be done on the basis of love for the sake of the child. How many times is that actually done? How many times is it done out of anger rather than love? How many times is it done out of compassion for the child rather than personal affront at being ignored or disobeyed? How many parents are nearly incapable of spanking without anger? If you study the effects of "spanking" alone without defining it, I would concur with the data ... because generally corporal punishment of children is not done out of love for the sake of the child. On the other hand, ask those children who experienced the type of discipline to which I'm referring if it was good or bad for them. I think you will find universally that they benefited from it.

What do I do with the data? More importantly, what would I do if I was a parent raising a child in a state that outlawed spanking? I would need to conclude that if "those whom the Lord loves He disciplines," then I am obligated to do the same. If I violate the law to obey God, so be it. This doesn't fall in the category of "optional" to me. The data falls in the category of "every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4), and I'd have to stick with God's instructions on this matter. Is spanking the only means of teaching children? Not at all! Should parents only spank? By no means! But since the Bible seems to indicate that the rod is sometimes necessary for the welfare of the child, far be it from me to remove a biblical tool from the parents' tool belt of child rearing.

Think About It

Yesterday I wondered why we believe what we believe. The example was my nephew's views on global warming. (Notice that yesterday's post did not have a "Global Warming" label on it ... because global warming was not the topic.)

So now Google is going green. On the surface they are trying to "produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal", but underneath their real goal is to "deal with climate change."

I suppose we shouldn't fight it. It appears that everyone with a brain is convinced that the planet is in danger because of mankind -- Americans, to be specific. Environmentalism is the new religion of the country. Jim pointed me to this fascinating quote by Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as Religion.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

It's hard to disagree with him. We all know, for instance, that the native Americans were at one with nature. No one doubts it. Disney proved it with their Pocahontas documentary. All modern sources affirm it. The fact that native Americans are hoping to hunt bald eagles for religious reasons fits right in with that, right? The wars between them were likely due to their passion for life on this planet.

Native Americans aren't the enemy. We are. We have forgotten how to think or to examine the facts. We operate in sound bites and think that it's nourishing news. We have eliminated logic and the arts from schools and pushed "new math" as if math is a variable, but we still maintain good, solid sports programs. Dismissive insults and cruel rhetoric pass for dialog and discussion. You will actually find people, for instance, that buy the idea that "one's religious views shouldn't affect their politics." Religion is the new enemy and Christianity is its face. People cannot distinguish, it seems, between Christian Children's Fund, for instance, that takes care of needy children, and Islamofacist terrorists who fly into buildings and think it's good to die killing others.

Sadly, Christians aren't a whole lot better. We're buying this stuff as well. Too often we think that faith and reason are separate entities. Too many believe in the total separation of Church and Mind. So you'll find people calling themselves Christians arguing that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, sex outside of marriage is a valid form of recreation, and "Who really cares if I steal from the government as long as I don't get caught?" None of these things define "Christian", but all of them fly in the face of "Jesus as Lord", which does define "Christian".

Well, I suppose I'm the enemy here. I don't doubt that the planet's temperature is increasing, but I have no reason to believe that we are causing it or that we can stop it. Google may argue that it's okay to fly around in company jets because "you have to tackle the big problems. To think that people are going to stop traveling is unrealistic." That doesn't make it reasonable or supportable. Al Gore may have received an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize for his movie, but that doesn't make it right or reasonable. And just because there are a growing number of voices out there calling for the end of Christianity doesn't mean that their arguments are sane. We need to think. We need to examine. We need to ... renew our minds.

Why We Believe

During my visit with family this last week, we had some interesting conversations with some of those on my wife's side of the family. One of the young men -- college age -- was quite agitated over global warming. He had seen An Inconvenient Truth and he had all the facts. How could any of us even question it? He had the science. He had the evidence. It was a certainty. Why weren't the rest of us as concerned?

I found the conversation interesting at times. When his grandmother pointed out that some of the facts of the movie are flatly denied by many scientists, he waved it off. Science had nothing to do with it, apparently. The only way to deny these facts was if they were liars with an alternate agenda. I mentioned that I was fascinated by the photograph I had seen recently. Al Gore had come to ASU (where I work) to talk on the topic and I saw a picture of the lot where the audience parked. Easily half the vehicles were SUVs. I said that it bothered me that so many people pounded their fists about how things needed to change but refused to change a thing themselves. Someone then asked our college kid, "So ... have you stopped driving?" Of course not. But he was caught off guard with that question and became much less irate.

The question that really struck me, though, wasn't so much the topic at hand, but the concept of why we believe what we believe. Two people in the room were quite sure that Mr. Gore had presented a true statement about the problem of global warming in his movie. No number of critics or scientists who disagreed would matter. He was right; they were wrong. The Earth is warming and the United States is the cause and if we don't act now we will kill everyone. More people in the room were quite sure that Mr. Gore had presented a less than truthful argument. They had seen the same information and questioned its veracity. They had heard the critics and opposing scientists and found them to be more compelling than Mr. Gore. None of the people in the room worked for the oil companies, so it couldn't be argued that they had alternate agendas.

My question is "Why?" Why did two of them believe Al while the rest did not? Why is my father-in-law adamant that we ought to ship every single illegal alien back to where they came from while the rest of the family is not? Why is my brother-in-law completely convinced that Jesus is the answer while his sister is convinced that Jesus never really existed? What is it that convinces us to believe what we believe? Why are there people who hear, "You know, the World Trade Center wasn't hit by an airplane; it was blown up by George Bush" and they believe it? There are conspiracy folks who leap on every possibility and conspiracy skeptics who think that a conspiracy cannot happen. There are folks quite certain that the Earth is flat and folks who believe that the moon landing was a fake.

Why? Why do people believe what they believe? It's not the evidence. Generally speaking we all have access to the same evidence. I cannot figure out what causes one person to buy into "A" and the other person to be equally convinced, viewing all the same evidence, that "A" is a lie.

I suppose if I knew the answer to a question like this, I would not only be a genius, I would be able to rule the world. I could just use this information to convince them to make me king. Now that is a scary idea. Maybe I won't pursue this question much further.

Trouble in the Jungle

It's not fair. We aren't allowed to go here. There is a "no touch zone" where we are not allowed to critically examine the topic. I'm crying "Foul!"

What am I talking about? Have you seen Bindi Irwin's upcoming song, Trouble In The Jungle? You know Bindi Irwin. She is that adorable little 9-year-old who has endured the heart-wrenching loss of her famous father, Steve Irwin, in a bizarre accident with a stingray. Undaunted and cute as a button, she has gone on with her own TV show, Bindi the Jungle Girl on Discovery Kids, fighting her father's fight for the preservation of wildlife. So, let's see, here we have a cute little girl who is following in her father's footsteps fighting for animals. What could be a problem here? Why would I want to "critically examine the topic"? What's the foul?

I'm relatively certain that Bindi doesn't write her own lyrics. Further, I'm quite sure that at 9 years old she is not going to carefully examine the concepts and ramifications of the song. The idea of the song is quite clear, but if I try to point to a problem, I'm going to be assaulting this poor little girl. Well, I'm all about examining ideas without attacking people, so here goes. Let's see if I can pull this one off.

The song is one of the latest in the long-standing attacks on human beings. I faced the same dilemma when I was a kid (which wasn't recently). A perennial favorite, the Disney film Bambi is quite clear when it comes to who the bad guy is. Why did the animals run? Who killed Bambi's mother? Who started the devastating forest fire? The narrator says, in ominous tones, "Man was in the forest." Bindi's song tells us precisely the same thing. Here's a sample of the lyrics:

I'm afraid of grizzly bears, but don't you see
Grizzly bears should really be afraid of me.
There's trouble in the jungle.
We find that mankind is not so kind at all.

The song attacks humans from various angles. We are a problem because we use animals for our own purposes. We are a problem because we continue to take more space to live. We are a problem because we don't offer animals the same level of protection that we offer people. Human beings, it seems, are the worst creatures to roam the earth.

I'm tired of it. I didn't like it coming from Disney; I don't like it coming from Bindi. I liked Disney and I like Bindi, but someone has to stop tossing out these accusations. You see, it wasn't us who put us here; it was God. It wasn't us who made us the dominant species; it was God. And while I can wholeheartedly agree that too many humans fail to properly care for our environment and planet, the bottom line is that we were given the role of dominion over the planet and we were made in the image of God -- two factors not included in the animal kingdom.

Paul expresses concern for the planet in Romans 8.

The creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:19-23).

Nature has suffered because of sin. Paul recognizes that. Decay is the result of sin. Paul recognizes that. The answer, however, is not to try to save Nature; the answer is to try to save men. It is in "the adoption as sons" and redemption and, ultimately, "the freedom of the glory of the children of God" that Nature will find her release. Scolding humans and making us out to be the cause of all ills on the planet is neither true nor fruitful.

I don't wish to cast aspersions on Bindi. She's doing what she was told was a good thing. She's not thinking about what she's doing; she's feeling her way. However, if you combine Bindi and Bambi with the growing thought that humans are a cosmic accident, biochemical bags that simply occurred in nature without intentional cause or intrinsic value, then you will be setting the conditions for the necessity of annihilation of the human race so this poor old planet can continue on peaceably without mean ol' mankind meddling with it. It will be hard to fight off that argument if the environmentalists and the atheists have their way.

Family Thanksgiving

I don't normally do much personal stuff, but I'm just back from a week with family, so here's an exception. Besides, it was a Thanksgiving weekend, so if I'm thankful for family, it seems appropriate. I am, indeed, thankful for family. Truly, I have an unusually good one. Maybe you'd like to meet some of them.

Patti is my older sister. She's married to Jim. Jim has just experienced a forced retirement. He is a builder. The have traveled around the country, living in a 5th-wheel trailer, building things for various companies. Jim has experienced some physical difficulties that have forced him to give up the work he truly loves. Undaunted, Jim was the same cheerful guy the younger kids called "the monster" this week at the family gathering. It says a lot about the strength of his faith in God's guidance in these difficult times. Of course, Patti has had this same concept for some time. When she was graduating from high school, she was (finally) diagnosed with lupus, a diagnosis that prevented her from going to college in England as planned. Her response was remarkable. "I like these times when God makes His will absolutely clear." Patti has gone through many difficult times herself, not the least of which are the difficult times her husband has gone through. Today she has no symptoms of the lupus (that I am aware of), loves the Lord, and loves her husband. She struggles as we all do from time to time, but ultimately rests in the arms of her Savior, believing that no matter what comes, He will do what's right.

Kari is my younger sister. Her husband, Jeff, is a great guy that works for a Christian credit union. Together they have four children. They managed to produce equal amounts of boys and girls, a feat I can't figure out. Jeff is a real money guy. He knows how to count it, manage it, grow it. At one point in their marriage he decided to change jobs from finances to police work. He had saved enough money to move them from Kentucky to southern California and survive without income for an extended period while he did the necessary preparations. Ultimately he gave up that dream because he felt that it would be detrimental to his family, and that was more important. I really respect someone like that. Now he has this dream job where he works at what he does best with coworkers who are Christians at a company devoted to Christian values. I mean, how many people work in a job in the secular world where they have weekly Bible studies as part of the job? I've watched Jeff grow from a new Christian to a guy hard after the heart of God. Jeff's not perfect -- who is? -- but he's growing. I have a great deal of admiration for Jeff as a professional, a father, and a husband. Kari is high on my list as well. She is a stay-at-home mom, perhaps one of the most difficult jobs on the planet. Raising four children is not easy, especially when one, the oldest, is autistic. He is, to me, the most difficult kind of autistic. If you're anticipating "autistic", you're prepared for what they are, but this one seems absolutely normal. He simply lacks the capability of empathy it seems. "How would it make you feel if ..." is a lost question on him. He's a great kid -- intelligent, energetic, and all that good stuff. His problem is in interpersonal relationships ... like with his siblings. It's deceptive and, as such, difficult to deal with. But Kari has stood firm in the task. She has four great kids, all individuals. I don't think she knows how much I admire her and appreciate her.

My younger brother is Ken. He's married to Kathy. Together they have two kids, both in college now. I've mentioned my brother before. He's the smart one. He has always seemed to be the accomplished one. He was better at the flute than I was at the clarinet, better at sports than I was, and certainly the academic. I've learned from him that being "better" isn't always all it's cracked up to be. Too often it is a measurement on faulty standards. Nonetheless, my brother has never been the arrogant type. We have always enjoyed a good relationship from our childhood on and I am so proud of and grateful for my brother. I really love Kathy as well. She is an accountant, herself a bright person. She is an individual, thinking for herself and doing what she thinks best instead of simply following the crowd. She is remarkable at numbers and remarkable at crafts. You should see some of the scrapbook things she has put together. More importantly, Kathy is ... a family person. Despite being an "in-law" by definition, she has always been at the family gatherings when other "in-laws" weren't too keen on it. You can always expect a "thank you" card from Kathy for a gift given because Kathy thinks that's important. While some parents are eager to let go of their in-laws and their kids, she is eager to hang on to both. I greatly admire that in her. The fact that both of their kids are in higher degree courses in college also speaks well of their parenting. The oldest is aiming at becoming an architect, and the younger daughter is looking at becoming an engineer. Very impressive.

My parents are perhaps the most remarkable. My father cries when his kids tell him they appreciate him and admire him as a father because he's quite sure he made a mess of it all. Obviously, reading the above, you can tell he's mistaken on that point. Using him as a standard for "father", I've fallen far short of the mark. I don't feel too badly, however, because he set the mark so high. My mother ... how can I tell you about how wonderful she is? How about this? She still sends birthday cards to my ex-wife. She just feels led by God to do it. How many mothers do that? She loves her kids in a remarkable way. She loves their spouses as if they are her own. As for her love for her husband -- well, that bar is set far beyond most of our comprehension. Yet, despite all the early difficulties, the two of them have a remarkable, solid, loving marriage. She once told my younger sister (she's 10 years younger than I), "The first 25 years are the most difficult; after that it just gets great." They've been married for 54 years and still going strong. I cannot begin to express my appreciation for and admiration of my mother and my father.

I have a great family. I adore my wife. I have really good kids. My parents are wonderful. My siblings are really good people with really good spouses and really good kids (with the exception, of course, of my older sister -- no kids). I have been blessed. It's nice to have had a Thanksgiving weekend to remind me again of some of those blessings. To me it's not at all about turkey and food. It's a reminder that God has been good to me from the day He placed me in this world.

Isaiah 43

"Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine!" (Isa. 43:1)

What a fantastic thing to hear from the mouth of God! "You are Mine." Coming from a lesser god, I don't suppose it would be of much benefit. It's reassuring, for instance, to hear my wife say, "I love you; you are mine." But to have from God "you are Mine" doesn't get any better.

"Since you are precious in My sight, since you are honored and I love you, I will give other men in your place and other peoples in exchange for your life" (Isa. 43:4).

"You are precious in My sight." Again ... from the mouth of God!

"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins" (Isa. 43:25).

Now, most of you are fairly close to sinless, I know, but this is a sentence that just grips me. To know that the Judge of all the Earth will not call to mind my sins is a blessing beyond compare. And it is humbling to know that it is not for my sake at all; it is for His sake. I am most happy to bring glory to God by having Him wipe out my transgressions.

"The people whom I formed for Myself, will declare My praise" (Isa. 43:21).

As you join with other believers around the world today to glorify God, remember this. We are His people. He formed us for Himself. Let us declare His praise.

Just Desserts

A recent news item (if I knew the source, I'd cite it -- I don't) covered the changes coming to the English language. The changes were centered on the acceptance of common usage ... even though it's wrong. The idea was that since more than half the users of the language are using terms incorrectly, their usage becomes acceptable and the dictionaries all change to reflect it.

I've seen it a lot myself. One seminary student wrote regarding a class that he took that it was "fascinating to the tilt." I understand "fascinating to the hilt." "To the hilt" refers to a sword inserted all the way to its last inch. In more modern vernacular, it would be "to the max" or, in older terminology, "to the utmost." That would be a fascinating class. But "fascinating to the tilt" doesn't make any sense to me. It has no meaning. The only meaning that I can derive from it is by connecting it to "to the hilt" and assuming the author made a mistake.

One I've heard several times is the replacement of the term "fathom" with "phantom". Something is so complicated or deep that "I just can't phantom it." "Phantom"? "Fathom" would refer to the nautical practice of throwing out a line knotted with regular spacing of one fathom (about 1.83m) to find out how deep the water is. If they ran out of rope, it was "too deep to fathom." If "I can't fathom it", the topic was just too deep to figure out. But if I can't "phantom" it, I suppose there are ghosts of some sort involved that I don't understand.

"Free rein" refers to the concept of letting loose of the horse's reins and allowing it to go wherever it chooses. In fact, the concept of "reins" in terms of control have several idioms in our language. You can "grab the reins" when you take control. You can "rein in" a loose cannon. You can "take the reins of power" when you assume control. All of these are images of controlling a horse, and that imagery gives them their meaning. The dictionary, however, is changing. Too many people think of the term "reign". When you have "free reign", it means you are free to rule as you please. You can "grab the reigns" to take control and "reign in" a loose cannon by passing edicts based on your rule. In other words, since it makes sense to some people, it's ... right.

There is a website called Eggcorn Database that has a whole listing of these types of twists to the English language. You can "go at it hammer and thongs", miss "by a hair's breath" or even "a hare's breadth", discuss a "mute point", or have "a tough road to hoe". "Shoe in" is now "shoo in", "anchors aweigh" has shifted to "anchors away", and instead of "deep-seated" problems, you have "deep-seeded" ones. Although it started out as a "bare-faced" or "bald-faced" lie, most think of it as a "bold-face" lie. In fact, when I checked they had 596 entries of misuse of the language.

What is happening? Why is the language shifting ... and why is the shift replacing the correct? Well, the reason for the shift is primarily because most people don't know the source. More importantly, most people don't think about the source. They are simply mimicking what they heard ... or think they heard. They aren't examining what it means, where it came from, or how to use it. They are simply parroting with a parrot's understanding. When confronted ("How can you say 'reign in'"???), instead of examining the possibility they are wrong, they simply rise to their own defense ("I can make sense out of 'reign in' so it must be okay."). And why is it replacing the correct? That which is correct is replaced by that which is popular ... just about everywhere you turn.

A shift from the right to wrong use of the language is a small item. It upsets some of us, but most people could care less. (Note: The original phrase was "couldn't care less", but popular usage has made "could care less" the "correct" term ... even though it makes zero sense.) The problem is that this same concept has weaved its way into less innocuous things like, oh, I don't know, theology and doctrine. People far too often have decided that the right thing to believe about the character of God and the nature of Christianity is whatever they've heard. Does it make sense? Not necessarily. Do they know the source? Not really. Can they defend it? Not particularly. Do the ramifications make sense? Not at all. So we go on to discuss common terminology like "justification" and "sanctification" and "Trinity" and the like, it turns out that the connections are almost nonexistent. At this point it becomes important to bare in mind that it's not much to do about nothing. We need to nip this in the butt before these folks sail us down the river. Most people, however, consider it a mute point.

All humor aside, we might be able to work our way around misuse of the language, but abuse of the nature of God and the doctrines of Christianity produce heresies like Open Theism, anti-Trinitarianism, and outright denials of justification by faith. These are not small items. Salvation and a relationship with the Father depend on them. When it comes to issues of faith and doctrine, "most people think this is true" or "it's the popular perception" will only get you into trouble if it's wrong. Not something we can afford.

I Deserve Happiness

I met with Dave (The names and details are changed because, well, it's probably the best thing to do.) some 15 years after working together in the Air Force. We had a lot of catching up to do. He had earned his pilot's license and gone on to be a professional pilot. He met his wife-to-be at a bar where he played as a musician on the side. She became his wife after helping him through some difficult times. They had two children together and he loved her other kids as his own. All was going okay until "she" came back into his life. She had been the one that got away, the love of his life, that special one that had broken his heart when she left years ago but was back now. He was now contemplating leaving his wife and running off with her. She was, after all, "the one". He surely didn't love his wife. He deserved to be happy, didn't he? How could anyone object?

It's not about Dave. It's about the standard mindset. Far too often it's not about what's right. It's about "what will make me happy". Sometimes that means that we leap into overbearing debt because "delayed gratification" isn't a reasonable thing to consider. "I want it and I want it now." Sometimes that means divorce. Marriage, after all, can be hard work. And what could be worth that kind of hardship? Sure, everyone knows that it hurts the children, but no one should think that I should have to sacrifice my own happiness for something beyond myself.

There are all sorts of ways that we evict the notions of personal responsibility, integrity, hard work, and sacrifice. It is so easy to think that these things get in the way of happiness. I don't really know why. We have all heard stories of people who work through difficult circumstances to come out with immense personal satisfaction. We all know that the people who are given comfort rather than earning it aren't happy with it. I suspect that we all have even experienced the satisfaction of a job well done, the joy of a hard-earned success.

Don't do it. Don't buy that lie. Don't shortchange others because "you deserve a break today." I mean, seriously, how can we be a culture whose marching orders for life are offered by a hamburger joint? Don't cut yourself off from the joys that follow some of the most difficult sacrifice and work of your life by opting for short term, surface "happiness" that lasts only as long as your first difficulty. Don't teach those around you that trials are evil, endurance is meaningless, and self is the only important thing.

During this season of "What do you want for Christmas", maybe we can think of something deeper than our immediate, short term, personal desires. There is a deeper joy out there in giving of self, surrendering of personal desires, and caring for those around us. Seriously, it's not all about you. You don't deserve happiness, but you will find real joy in self-sacrifice, personal integrity, and looking out for others. Give it a shot.

Happy Thanksgiving

I'm grateful.

I'm grateful for family. The more I know about "normal" families, the more stunned I am at how good God was to me in giving me my family. I have marvelous parents, great siblings, a wonderful wife, and great kids. I even have remarkably good in-laws. I'm grateful for family.

I'm grateful for my health and life. I have a good job doing work I like making enough money to support my family and good benefits to take care of what I need to take care of. I remain healthy, rarely getting sick or suffering from physical ailments. I'm grateful for my health and life.

Years ago I asked my kids (when they were kids) what they were grateful for, and one gave the "naive" answer, "I'm thankful for God." I smiled and nodded and went on, amused, but the more I thought about it the more impressed I was with the answer. My relationship with God informs every aspect of my life. It makes tough times purposeful and joyful. It gives direction to life. It provides strength in struggles, purpose in life, and humility in high points. It provides motivation in doing my job, reasons to love my wife, direction and support as a father, even instruction on how to be a citizen.

My son was young and somewhat simplistic when he told me he was grateful for God. I have a whole lot for which to be grateful. I have family, health, life, salvation, on and on and on. All of it, however, is a gift from God. I am grateful to God for all of it. I am grateful for God for the benefits He provides and the God that He is.

His mercies are new every morning.

Count your many blessings.

Here's hoping you have a happy Thanksgiving.

You Gotta Have Friends

If one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart (Eccl. 4:12).

Friendship is an important thing to human beings. As the song says, "You gotta have friends." The Bible, on the other hand, records this interesting warning:

A man of too many friends comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother (Prov. 18:24).

Apparently, then, there are varieties of friends. Some are good, and some are not. We all know, for instance, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend" (Prov. 27:6). So what's up with that?

It's fairly simple. I'm not divulging any deep thought. Friendship happens at various levels. The lightest level -- the surface level -- would be the acquaintance. Most of us have lots of people with whom we're acquainted. These are people who likely know our name and probably not much else. We can ask about their health or work and share how we are doing today (The standard acceptable answer is "fine, thanks"). They don't want to know and we aren't free to share much beyond that at this level. As we dig deeper into friendship, we will find the next level. I'll call it "casual friendship". This level generally shares commonality of interests. Shared interests provide opportunities for a little deeper connection ... but not too deep. As we dive through the surface level of acquaintance and start to select people with common interests, we end up with a smaller number of people that could be considered "close friends". Close friends have some level of commitment to each other. There is a shared set of interests, but more importantly there is a concern for each other in those shared interests. Finally there is that deepest level of friendship that I will call "intimate friends". I don't mean it in the sexual sense, but in the sense of a shared connection at the most intimate levels of the person. These friends are rare. Most people won't have more than two or three of these. These friends are given the right to correct us because we are convinced that they love us. We can share our deepest thoughts and feelings with these friends because we are convinced they are on our side.

As the levels of friendship deepen, the numbers decrease. There are lots of acquaintances, but fewer casual friends, even fewer close friends, and an extremely limited number of intimate friends. That last level would (hopefully) include a spouse and one or two others -- no more. Indeed, some people have real problems getting to that deepest level.

We need friends. God designed us for connection. We need people with whom we can share various levels of our lives. We need close friends with whom we can share our thoughts and feelings. Some people are so bruised in life that they close out the possibility of friends at anything deeper than casual friendship. They don't want to have deep conversations or share deep feelings. But we need them. We weren't meant to be disconnected.

I need my friends. I have enjoyed very few connections with sufficient trust that I can share the gammut of what constitutes "me". My friend, Steve, has been one of those very rare connections. We have shared it all. Now, having moved to a different state, I feel acutely the loss of that connection. The other night my wife and I visited the evening with Steve and his wife. What a wonderful time.

Be grateful for the friends you have ... at all levels. Treat them well. remember, even if a good friend causes you pain at times, "faithful are the wounds of a friend." Friends are a gift from God. Treasure them.

Freethought

Anyone who has spent much time out here on the web can miss this term -- freethinker. It is a popular term among atheists. Depending on who you talk to, the definition varies slightly. According to wikipedia, the term is "a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be compromised by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma." More strident folks will argue, "Beliefs create mental barriers and have caused violence, ignorance, and intolerance." So to believe anything, by this definition, would preclude you from being a "freethinker". (I guess you'd have to believe that belief causes mental barriers to believe that a freethinker isn't supposed to believe anything ... but I digress.)

For most, it is assumed that a "freethinker" (I put it in quotes and skip the gap between "free" and "thinker" because it is its own term) is not a religious person. It is assumed that freethought is synonymous with atheism. It is assumed that the only way that a person can believe in a God of any sort is to be convinced by emotion, authority, tradition, or dogma. Any thinking person, they assume, can see that belief in God is "faith", not "reason", and not a matter of "science and logic." To put it most simply and in the way most seem to put it, there is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, any belief in God is not free thought, is not rational, and is not logical.

I cannot even begin to fathom where this idea comes from. Even Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist, admitted that "free thought" was not about what you believed, but how you believed it.

What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he find a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem. [Bertrand Russell, "The Value of Free Thought" Bertrand Russell on God and Religion (ed. Al Seckel, Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986), pp. 239-40.]

Do a search sometime. Just Google "evidence for the existence of God". The listings are long. There are scientific listings and PhD types. There are quick and, unfortunately, silly listings. There are websites devoted to the question. There are books and DVDs and even a video on YouTube. Is there evidence for the existence of God? I can't imagine how one could deny it.

Now, it is possible to argue "There is no proof of the existence of God." "Proof" is defined as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true or to produce belief in its truth." Is there evidence that the Earth is a sphere? Absolutely! Are there people who believe it is flat? Amazingly, yes. The evidence may be overwhelming, but it is not sufficient to produce belief in its truth. But the fact that there is no proof of the existence of God is merely a comment on the nature of "proof", not on the existence of evidence.

There is evidence that God exists. It cannot be denied. It can be denied that the evidence constitutes proof. It can be denied that the evidence is valid. It can be denied that there is a God. But the fact remains that there is evidence, whether or not it is accepted or sufficient, for the existence of God.

I get tired sometimes of the "superiority" of the "freethinkers". You'll find it on TV. Any real intellectual on the television shows denies the existence of God because, well, it's not rational. Denying that belief in God can be rational is not rational. It is entirely possible for someone to examine the evidence for and against and come to the logical conclusion that there is a God. Why it is that "freethinkers" need to vehemently deny this is beyond me. Me thinks they doth protest too much ...

Gun Violence

News Flash!

Yesterday, an estimated 65 million gun owners in the U.S. didn't kill anyone.

Just thought you'd like to know.

(Short, I know, but I'm working from the road.)

The Communion of the Saints

When you go to church today, remember ...

You have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, "If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned." Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I tremble with fear." But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (Heb. 12:18-24).

You have come to the city of the living God. You are among innumerable angels. You are joining with the rest of the saints -- the spirits of the righteous made perfect. You are going to be in the presence of Jesus. I cannot imagine how anyone could think for a moment, "Church is boring. There's nothing relevant going on here. I wish they'd make it more interesting." Enjoy this day of the Lord.

His Dark Materials

I have already raised the flag about this new movie coming out, The Golden Compass. Due to my vast readership and expansive influence, I'm sure both of my readers are now fully aware of the danger. I noted the other day, however, the real danger in this stuff.

Philip Pullman, the author of The Northern Lights, the book upon which the upcoming movie, The Golden Compass is based, says of himself that he "is of the Devil's party and does know it." He says of this book that it was his goal to invert heaven and hell. He considers Christianity "a very powerful and convincing mistake" and believes that the constant function of the Church is to "control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." His stories include Church-controlled scientists who kidnap children and perform gruesome experiments on them. His self-stated ultimate goal is the killing of God.

In the first book, however, The Northern Lights, we are treated to only the surface story. Pullman denies that it's his answer to C.S. Lewis (whom he calls a racist and "monumentally disparaging of women"), and he asserts that his books aren't anti-Christian -- they're anti-religion. But the effect here is a bit disconcerting. We will be given an exciting film looking for all the world like the Chronicles of Narnia with only a hint of anti-God in it. Kids will be excited and want to read more. They can run on over to Walmart and find the trilogy -- His Dark Materials. Oh, joy! Good reading! More fun! Parents, having seen nothing too disturbing about the movie, will allow this spiritual land mine into their homes, happy to have their kids read again. And Philip Pullman will be given the opportunity to poison young minds with his own hatred of the Church and his own lies about God.

I'm not against Pullman's freedom of expression. I would protect his right to say what he wants. I don't have to face God for his words at Judgment Day. And I don't think that my beliefs are so indefensible that they can't stand up to a bitter enemy of the church and his children's stories. None of that concerns me. What I am concerned about is that this material is going to be handed to children. These little minds are not prepared to analyze the information they're given. And parents rarely take the time to do it for them or with them. So, thinking that they're simply giving their kids another nice book to read, they will be handing their children poison of the variety that tastes good, goes down easy, and serves to repress the truth ... all without knowing it.

Maybe you're a concerned parent who reads with your kids and can walk them through this stuff. Good for you! Maybe you're a cautious parent who doesn't just jump up and down that your young reader wants to read and are concerned about what they read. Excellent! For the rest, please be cautious. It looks innocent enough, but the author himself has not hidden his intentions. Be aware.